Trade for Haynesworth?

[gunn]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

Hayyell no.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...hdebacle041610

Look... That article makes sense, don't get me wrong... but that type of article made more sense last year. At that time I would have agreed that its probably too much money.. But the past is the past and truth now is the primary focus of that piece is guaranteed money and he is just not owed all that anymore. As mentioned earlier, he is quite reasonable over the next three years.

To me, I look at that and say... here we can add a guy in his prime 28-32 range at a reasonable price for a three year window, one that dominates at his position, in an attacking 43 scheme that fits his style, a position of need, paired next to what we already have on the line and second level talent wise.. If we are able to add a piece to the secondary in the first round... That could make for one potent defense...

[HPF Bob]

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

[dalemurphy]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

I don't want him either. But, I think the point is, he wouldn't hurt the cap because we wouldn't be responsible for any of his signing bonus money. That all is escalated to the Redskins 2010 cap (if there was one). We would only be responsible for the yearly base salaries. So, in theory, we could cut him at any point without there being a cap hit.

[NBT]

NOPE. Haynesworth only puts out when it is his contract year, otherwise he could care less.

[Blitzwood]

Originally Posted by dalemurphy

But, I think the point is, he wouldn't hurt the cap because we wouldn't be responsible for any of his signing bonus money. That all is escalated to the Redskins 2010 cap (if there was one). We would only be responsible for the yearly base salaries. So, in theory, we could cut him at any point without there being a cap hit.

If this is accurate, I'd have to give him a long hard look. Maybe a third rounder in 2011, which could be a compensatory pick and wouldn't cost us anything in essence. The real question is "do we want him in our locker room"?

If he checked out as a decent guy, I'd take him.

[cland]

I found this after my post, but he sees it the same way:

Here's Paul Kuharsky's take from his AFC South Blog.

Paul Kuharsky: I simply can’t believe Albert Haynesworth will be available for so little compensation with so little guaranteed money left on his deal. If he is, absolutely Houston should be at the head of the line. I’d give up a second for him in a heartbeat and the pass rush would get just what it needs. I would think the Jaguars would be interested too, and I know the Titans would be. But neither of them have a second-round pick.

[Joe Joe]

For a guy who only plays in his contract year, he got more sacks than every defensive tackle on the Texans (probably combined). At the very least, he would be a good third down DT. I would say give up a third...if he causes too many locker room issues, cut him. Outside the attitude, he is what the Texans want in a DT.

[Joshua]

I would absolutely consider trading for him. I'm also curious about some of the concerns expressed about him as they just don't jive with my memory. First, he was most definitely not a one season wonder. He has been one of the best DTs in the league for several years. As for being a cancer, as I recall, Haynesworth was ticked when he was franchised by the Titans and wanted a new longterm deal instead. Hardly an unusual situation and one you see pretty regularly. I don't recall any locker room problems with him. If we're going to cross off every player who's pissed about being franchised, that is going to make for a pretty long list. Further, as the rumors go, Tennessee is one of the teams interested. No one knows him better than Fisher and if Fisher wants him back, that tells me everything I need to know. However, I will agree that he is somewhat injury prone and will likely miss 2-6 games a year. I would take that tradeoff though.

[kRocket]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

Why do you say selfish? He isn't asking for a new deal, he just doesn't want to play in a 3-4 defense. As previously stated the ridiculous money has already been spent and the balance is pretty bearable. If he played on an already good defense where he was not the only horse pulling he might return to form. If he was obtainable it just wouldn't make sense not to jump at.

I have not heard of him being a clubhouse cancer? I Googled 'Haynesworth and cancer'. I found several references but they were all forum responses or blogs, no real incriminations except that he refuses to come to team workouts because he won't play NT and a 3-4. The team hired him to be in a 4-3 and then asked him to do something else and he refused. You might do the same at your job also. Well, you may not refuse but just look for a new job. Same-same.